Date: 19990527
Docket: IMM-1714-98
BETWEEN:
TAMARA ROSHID NAVID
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NADON J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Board") dated March 18, 1998 pursuant to which the Board held that the applicant was not a Convention refugee
[2] The facts, as related by the applicant, can be summarized as follows. The applicant, Tamara Roshid Navid, is an Iranian Muslim woman who made a Convention refugee claim based on her fear of persecution by reason of perceived political opinion antithetical to the theocratic regime, and by reason of belonging to a pro-monarchist women"s group holding anti-fundamentalist Islamic ideas.
[3] The applicant alleges that her family has had a history of opposition to the Islamic regime. For instance, out of loyalty to the Shah, during the Islamic revolution, the applicant refused to follow the Islamic dress code or attend daily prayer sessions. For these reasons, the applicant explains, she was laid off from her secretarial position in 1982.
[4] Soon after, with the help of her husband who was a television director and producer, the applicant obtained a position with the Iranian national television station also as a producer. Her job was to do research and produce a nightly, lighthearted, 15-minute segment on various social issues such as water shortage and supply in Teheran, problems with water purification sites, and efforts the government should be taking to prevent injury during earthquakes.
[5] In 1996, the applicant was asked to produce a program on the upcoming elections in Iran. As a result, she interviewed ordinary citizens on their views of the election, many of whom expressed dissatisfaction with the Islamic government and its single-party rule.
[6] During the course of the alleged videotaping of one of the interviews on the street, the camera accidentally included a government mural of the highest-ranking cleric in Iran. Two slogans were underneath the mural: one slogan praised the cleric and the other insulted him. The camera was aimed at such an angle that only the insulting slogan was photographed.
[7] On February 28, 1996, videotapes and documents from these interviews were stolen from the applicant"s office. Two revolutionary guards then came into the office and took the applicant and two of her TV station co-workers to the security office, interrogated, jailed, verbally insulted, assaulted, subjected them to mock executions, and detained them for nine days. At the jail, the applicant was told that all the jailers needed to know was contained in the seized video. At this time, the applicant was also pressured to reveal the names of the women in the pro-monarchist group that she had been meeting regularly to discuss how to advance the position of women in Iranian society.
[8] The Board found the applicant"s evidence not credible and, as a result, dismissed her claim. At pages 2 and 3 of its decision, the Board sets out its determination as follows:
The Refugee Division determines that Tamara Roshdi Navid is not a Convention refugee for the following reasons. The panel has reviewed the claimant"s evidence in its totality and concludes that she is not a credible witness. There were many internal inconsistencies in her oral testimony as well as inconsistencies between the claimant"s PIF, her oral testimony and the Immigration officer"s notes at the port of entry. Furthermore, having considered all the evidence presented by the claimant within the context of the documentary evidence before it, the panel finds many of the incidents and their causes as she described them to be implausible and therefore not credible or trustworthy.
[9] The Board rejected the applicant"s claim on credibility grounds because it found that, given the applicant"s level of education, the manner in which she answered questions came across as evasive and impatient. The Board found the applicant"s explanations vague, convoluted, tangential and implausible and found that she avoided questions. The Board found that the manner in which the applicant gave her evidence tainted the evidence and her claim.
[10] The following conversation comes from the tribunal hearing, and is referred to in the Board"s reasons that will follow:
| |
GIBBS What type of offense were you charged with in Iran? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT First of all, because of that production, which I produced, and because of my records background and because of the detention and the interrogations I went through and the Islamic Republic"s view of me and the torture which I was subjected to -- |
|
| |
GIBBS Sorry to interrupt, but when you say type of offense, what were you charged or accused of doing? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT The type of offense I was accused of, the tape they obtained from me, that was against violation of the Islamic Republic government. |
|
| |
WINKLER When you got to court, were you charged with something? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT The court trial for me was not done yet and there was no verdict therefore. |
|
| |
WINKLER No, no, no, the charges. |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Well, my offense was not the charge against me. And the offense was not a simple matter, because they asked for a bond over 30 million, two months. |
|
| |
WINKLER What does that mean? |
|
| CLAIMANT It means a 30 million two month bond is very serious and heavy. It"s not a simple thing that somebody puts up that amount.1 |
[11] The Board refers to this conversation in its decision as an example of the applicant"s evasiveness. In this regard, the Board says, at page 5 of its decision, the following:
The panel notes that the claimant has a high school diploma (having twelve years of formal education) and that she worked for approximately fourteen years in the Iranian media. This would indicate that the claimant is intelligent with a high level of sophistication. Further, as an experienced media producer and researcher, it is reasonable to assume that she has good communication skills, is articulate, observant and able to express herself clearly. The panel finds that this was not the case. On the contrary, the claimant was evasive as she frequently avoided answering questions put to her by providing other information than was asked of her. Often her answers were so convoluted as to require the questioner to ask her to explain what she meant by them. For example, when asked what outstanding charges were laid against her in Iran, she responded by saying that there had been no trial yet, and therefore there was no verdict. Asked what she meant by this, she answered that her offense was not a simple matter because the authorities had asked for a bond of 30 million tommans to be paid for her release. Asked for further clarification of her statement, she said it meant that a thirty-million tommans bond is very serious and heavy. She added that it is not a simple thing that someone puts up that amount of money for a bond.
[12] Further on, at pages 6 and 7, the Board makes the following statement:
The claimant attempted to explain the difference between all her previous videotaped documentaries and the final one (which had allegedly resulted in her arrest) by saying the earlier ones had all been censored and were not broadcast. Later, she said her previous videotapes were not critical of the regime, they were only critical of the "status of women" in the society in which we lived. The panel finds this to be only an ambiguous rephrasing of virtually the same answer. She went on to say that in Iran, elections are very significant events and that is why the authorities are much more sensitive out there than they are about any opposition expressed about social issues.
[13] On the same subject, the Board then adds the following comment at page 7:
[...] Her efforts to explain her situation were not satisfactory. The panel finds them to be vague, evasive and tangential. The panel concludes that her answers, far from explaining how her final television program about the elections was different from all her previous ones so as to result in her arrest and detention, were fabrications designed to bolster her refugee claim and were not credible.
[14] In addition to the foregoing, I have carefully reviewed the transcript of the applicant"s evidence and I am satisfied that it contains a number of examples which support the Board"s conclusion that the applicant"s evidence was not credible. What follows is a sampling of the discussions that took place during the hearing:
| |
BERGER How did they know about the women"s group? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Because once a month I had a meeting with these women. We would go for luncheon. At the department I would say -- whenever I went for those meetings, I would say where I am going at the department. |
|
| |
BERGER So your management would be aware of them? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Well, in the beginning there was nothing incriminating about this, to cause me problems with the department. But later on gradually when we got together, had meetings, and we discussed as to how we could help women, and their rights, then it became more complex than complicated. |
|
| |
WINKLER Could you answer counsel"s question, which was, as I recall it, that whether your manager knew that you were meeting, where you were going to these meetings? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Well, you see, it wasn"t the matter of the meetings, but I found that out later on that the activities of everyone is being monitored by the authorities. And before that, whenever I wanted to go to lunch, well, I would tell our secretary that I"m going to lunch, for example. |
|
| |
However, later on, the activities I had, the get togethers I had, where, for example, later on I was asked the places I went to. For example, I was asked on such day why did you go to the court, for example. So I found out that perhaps they were aware of all these get togethers with these women. However, it was not of a political nature at all. |
|
| |
WINKLER Can I just ask a question though? |
|
| |
WINKLER Did you meet with this women"s group during working hours? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Lunch time. Yes, when we went for lunch, it was working hours. |
|
| |
WINKLER So did you say where you were going? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Sometimes I would say where I"m going, because the producers don"t have to be in the department at all times and be there always. |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA So you were going to lunch, or you said you were going to somebody"s house? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Because on the day when I had wanted to go to lunch, because our department was located in an areas where there were many restaurants. So we could sometimes go out and have lunch in the restaurant. |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA So you used to say that you were going to lunch. |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA Actually you were going to these meetings. |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Well, these were just private get togethers, not really in a form of meetings, because some of them were -- belonged to the monarchists or were members, but they have to know the person well, they have to trust and have confidence in that person and then allow that person to join them. They had not yet given me that kind of -- |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA I appreciate your explanation. If you please concentrate on the question and answer the question directly. If we want an explanation, we"ll ask for an explanation. |
|
| |
So what I asked you, did you say that you were going to lunch when actually you were going to this get together? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Well, sometimes we had an agreement and set up time " pre set time to go and help a woman, for example, which we had already reviewed her case and realized that she needs help. During the lunch hour, we would go and help that woman, for example. |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA Let us concentrate on the occasions when you went to these private get togethers. Let"s concentrate on those. |
|
| |
What would you say when you go to these private get togethers in the office to your secretary? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT I didn"t always offer explanation, because sometimes these get togethers were held at my home, my house. |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA On those such occasions when you did say something to a secretary as to where you were going, when you went to these private get togethers, are there any occasions where you said that you were going to have a meeting or something like that? Did you say anything on those lights? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Not really, no. Because usually the secretaries of these units are also agents of the intelligence, secretary. |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA So, in other words, you never said that you"re going to these private get togethers? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Well, sometimes these women called me by telephone. When I conversed with them, perhaps that conversation was overheard and they realized that I"m pursuing some issues. |
|
| |
BERGER If I may, sir. I think what the panel is trying to determine is how would the authorities have known about you participating in these private get togethers if you didn"t directly say so to your manger or your secretary. |
|
| CLAIMANT Just the contacts they had with me. Sometimes they came to see me in person. For example, one of these women was working at the university and if there was an issue to be discussed, she would come to my department, to my office.2 |
[15] The above questions and answers clearly demonstrate, in my view, the evasiveness of the applicant"s answers.
[16] Another example of evasiveness on the part of the applicant appears from a discussion between the applicant"s counsel, Max Burger, member Winkler and the applicant regarding what occurred during the applicant"s detention:
| |
BERGER Can you just take us through now, if you would, like the balance of your detention until you were finally released? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT After I was released, of course, before, prior to that, I didn"t know what was going on in the outside, because I was given permission to call my father to speak to her once and after 48 hours. |
|
| |
When I was let go, I was let go on a street. I was in a terrible shape mentally. So I was in a terrible state of mind when I called home. |
|
| |
WINKLER Ms. Navid, I"d like you to listen very carefully to your counsel"s questions. He knows your story and knows what we need to hear. And although your information is interesting, we really do need the answers to what he"s asking. |
|
| |
I believe that he wanted to know what had happened to you during your detention to the final aspect of it. Now, it"s in your Personal Information Form, so maybe, Mr. Berger, there"s something more specific you"d like to ask about that period. |
|
| |
INTERPRETER The claimant stated I thought you said after the release, after the detention. |
|
| BERGER No, that"s not correct. I was asking you to just take us through the rest of your detention, what happened to you.3 |
[17] Again, the applicant attempts to reformulate the questions and to answer the reformulation rather than the question posed to her.
[18] Another example of the applicant"s evasiveness appears in that part of the transcript where member Prabhakara attempts to ascertain who informed the applicant that her bond had been accepted:
| |
PRABHAKARA Who told you that your bond is accepted? Somebody told you that your bond is accepted. |
|
| |
CLAIMANT After I called my father and they came and took me to the hospital, then they told me what was going on there and what my brother was doing over there. He was there in order to put -- |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA I just want to get clarification, if you don"t mind, please. |
|
| |
When I go back to my notes, you said no verdict was given on that day. |
|
| |
CLAIMANT There was no verdict on that day. I was temporarily -- |
|
| |
PRABHAKARA No, listen to me. I haven"t completed yet. Listen to me, then you can answer the question. Okay? |
|
| |
You said, according to my notes, no verdict was given on the day, except for the bond for my release and informed me as to when to appear. |
|
| |
Was not this information given to you on that day and who gave it? If it was given on that day, who gave you that information? |
|
| CLAIMANT No. My brother told me all this later on. However, during the interrogations, they kept telling me that your sentence would be execution and we have found evidence against you and that there would be no other sentence for you about this.4 |
[19] After discussing all sorts of issues, the applicant finally answers the member"s question.
[20] I will give a final example. This one appears from an exchange between the Refugee hearing officer, Ms. Gibbs, and the applicant. In an effort to determine how the applicant came to produce the program on elections, Ms. Gibbs asks the applicant the following questions:
| |
GIBBS How did you go from producing your nightly 15 minute lighthearted program to producing a program on the elections, as you describe being very sensitive? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT Well, that"s not the point, because I could produce several programs at the same time. |
|
| |
CLAIMANT It means that I could be producing a short tape regarding recreational or amusement program. At the same time, I"m given a production which might take six months, which requires research and time to produce at the same time. |
|
| |
GIBBS You just mentioned earlier that your shows generally dealt with social issues, not political issues. |
|
| |
CLAIMANT No, not political. |
|
| |
GIBBS But the elections, that would be political; wouldn"t it? |
|
| |
CLAIMANT One cannot say it was political, because the group I worked with was not a political in nature group. The political aspect had its own group. I worked in the knowledge group or science group, and that is to promote awareness and to give information to the public in every grounds. |
|
| |
GIBBS Now, I asked the question, because we"re trying to understand why this particular program has caused you so much trouble when past programs you worked on were just censured, you weren"t arrested. |
|
| |
Now, on the one hand you explained that this was different in nature, it was political, not social and it was much more sensitive. But now you"re saying it wasn"t political, you were just in the knowledge section. |
|
| CLAIMANT Well, I didn"t say it wasn"t political. The group I was working with, it was not a political in nature group. However, various programs were made and this time they gave it a political aspect or nature. But I didn"t have that intention to make it political. If I had the opportunity to edit that tape, I wouldn"t have encountered that situation.5 |
[21] The applicant begins by attempting to avoid the question by saying that the question posed to her is "not the point". She then tries to avoid the question which is about the difference in the nature of past and present programs and discusses instead the time it took to produce them. When she is specifically asked to explain the fact that the elections are of a political nature and her earlier shows were of a social nature, she again attempts to avoid this line of questioning by claiming that the election program was not political since it was done by a group of people that did not make political programs. Finally, the applicant admits that the election program was political but adds that she did not intend it to be. At the end of this interchange, it is noteworthy that the applicant has still not explained why she was asked to do a political program when her background was in social programs.
[22] In my view, the transcript of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Board"s findings regarding the applicant"s credibility cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be characterized as unreasonable. I have read the transcript of the applicant"s evidence on a number of occasions and I have no difficulty understanding why the Board reached the conclusion that it did. Although I did not have the benefit of seeing and hearing the claimant, it seems clear to me that the claimant was indeed evasive as she did her best to avoid answering many of the questions put to her during the hearing.
[23] As the Board"s conclusion regarding credibility is, in my view, amply supported by the evidence, I need not address the other issues raised by the applicant.
[24] For these reasons, this application for judicial review shall be dismissed.
Marc Nadon
Toronto, Ontario
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: TAMARA ROSHID NAVID |
Applicant
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Micheal Crane
For the Applicant
Ms. Sally Thomas
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Micheal Crane
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990527
Docket: IMM-1714-98
Between:
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
__________________
1 Tribunal Transcript, page 367.
2Tribunal Transcript, pages 352 to 354.
3 Tribunal Transcript, page 356.
4 Tribunal Transcript, page 358.
5 Tribunal Transcript, page 358.
Email this Content